Blog 10 Final Reflections

     This has definitely been an interesting semester to say the least! Last semester we covered a lot of pre-columbian and colonial history, which is all very interesting but sometimes it is a little difficult to truly process as a reality because it happened so long ago in a place with a history and background than our country. I would say that I got a similar feeling from this semester for a very different reason. I think we all grew up hearing that we were lucky to be born in the greatest country on Earth and I think that learning about all the things that the U.S. did or assisted in has been a little mind-boggling. We were told that we were "the world's superhero" but never told how much we hurt Latin American countries in the name of capitalism and "democracy." It has been interesting for me to come to terms with the realities of how countries interact and what it means to be the "good guy" or the "bad guy." I truly think that, at least some of the time, the actions that the United States took in Latin America came from a good-hearted place rather than always one of manipulation and greed. I think that there were truly people who believed that their actions would help the countries they were interacting with, even if the end result didn't portray this. This class has definitely inspired me to look at history from multiple perspectives and that what we are taught is not necessarily "the truth" but rather one person's view of the truth. Maybe truth is just that, one person's perspective.
     On a lighter note, this has been an interesting class and semester for me, personally. I broke my foot pretty early on in the semester so it's been a bit of a struggle! I have definitely learned a lot about myself this semester, particularly how much I can take. I don't think I have ever worked this hard in my life and I don't think that I have ever, EVER been under this much stress. That being said, I've made it through and, honestly, I think that I have handled it really well!

Blog 9 reply to Sam

I thought that his speech as really interesting! Like you said, hearing his speech gave me a new appreciation for the film industry and not the big screen cinema productions but the films that have a lot of heart and soul. Since hearing his talk I've been trying to pay more attention to choices that directors make and it has been really interesting. I noticed that in doing so, I tend to make a much more emotional connection to the movie and I think that I understand it on a deeper level. I'm really glad we got to hear him talk.

Blog 9

This past week in Latin American Civilization and Culture we have been looking at Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet and their roles in Chile. What I think is interesting is that we are also looking at the same topic in my Spanish class right now. In class we talked a lot about all the awful things that Pinochet did with the support of the U.S. but not so much the outcome of his presidency. In Spanish, we learned that he called for economic support from the U.S. and brought in a bunch of economists from Chicago (or at least that's what I got from our lecture in Spanish). Since his presidency, the per capita GPD has risen drasitically and inflation was somewhat taken care of. This creates a really interesting polarization of his legacy. We read some articles on how he is remembered in Chile and the reality is that people are really split. Some remember the horrible torture and murder and other atrocities that he committed while others see that he "saved a generation" from poverty and starvation. Chile is now a thriving country in the southern cone and it appears that some of that success is due to him and his dictatorship. I think that that is incredibly interesting. I think we like to look back at history and decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy and we believe that we assume that bad guys only do bad and good guys are the saviors of their countries. Looking at Pinochet, we can see that this is not necessarily true and the parallel between being a good person and doing good for your country isn't always quite so clear.

Week 9 (blog 8) reply to Eric

I really liked your inclusion of the quote about history repeating itself, I think that's very true. You talked about how there are generations of people who are ignorant to the actions of the United States and I see the danger that you have pointed out. I think that it's vital that we as Americans truly learn our history, both the good and the bad. Ignoring our wrongdoing doesn't only hurt others it hurts us as a country because we can't learn from our mistakes. We have been told our whole lives that the United States is the best country in the world but if we truly want to be the best we need to accept our failures and improve upon them.

Week 9 (blog 8)

This past week in Latin America Civilization and Culture we watched The Motorcycle Diaries which was about the story of Che Guevara before he was the political activist that he is known for being. I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. I think that it's easy to forget that the popular figure we see are real people that had lives and friends. Seeing this movie reminded me that Che Guevara was more than a figure. He was a man whose heart-broke at the sight of all the people who were hurt by poverty that he saw while traveling around South America. It was also interesting to see the origin of a man who is so polarized in the eyes of the world. To many in South America he is revered as a hero of the people but in the U.S. he is regarded as a violent communist, or at least that was the impression I got growing up. Having been born in the United States, I was raised to fear communism and was told that Cuba was a place of distress and poverty because of its corrupt and evil leaders. Taking this class, it has been incredibly interesting to see these figures and these countries from a different perspective. Watching The Motorcycle Diaries really reminded me that the people who fought for these ideas weren't evil monsters out to destroy the world, they were just people who were willing to give up their lives for what they believed was right. I think this sentiment is truly encapsulated in a video clip I saw of Fidel Castro recently when he was swarmed with newscasters. I can't remember the exact words that were said but I remember one of the newscasters asking him something about wearing a bulletproof vest and in response Castro unbuttoned his shirt exposing his bare chest and saying something along the lines of, "I have a moral vest." That statement really stuck with me. This was a man who wasn't fighting to win for himself, he was fighting because it was what he believed was right.

Week 7 Reply to Carter

I agree with your sentiment. My world history class in high school could hardly be considered a class. In it, I learned next to nothing about Latin America or really any countries for that matter. That was one of my main motivations for taking this class. The reality is that before this class I knew next to nothing about Latin America and especially nothing about the U.S.'s interference.

Week 7

This past week in Latin American Civilization we have spent some time analyzing the book The Underdogs by Mariano Azuela. This book followed some fictional men in the Mexican Revolution who Azuela used to represent his general sentiment towards the war. When he wrote this novel, he had been exiled to the U.S. and his opinions were rather bleak as he did not know that the war would pick back up. He takes a hard look at the revolution as well as the revolutionaries motives. We looked at his views in comparison of the men who fought in the revolution in comparison to the men portrayed in the film Viva Zapata! It was interesting to see the differences but also the similarities between the two. In Viva Zapata!, we see Emiliano Zapata who was simply fighting for the rights of his people. When he saw himself begin to become corrupt, he quickly drew away from power and went back to fight for his people once more. In The Underdogs the corruption is seen in revolutionaries pretty quickly. They murder and steal, as well as partake a whole host of other miscreant deeds. Azuela, seemingly, was trying to portray that there was not a big of a difference between the Federales and the rebels as others seemed to believe. It was as if he wanted to point out that both sides of the war were being fought for selfish reasons, fought because it benefited the individual and the ideology of the war came second. This stark contrast demonstrates that there was more to this war than simply one idea or one motivation. It was deeply complicated and personal.

Week 6 Reply to Sam

I also enjoyed looking at the individuals during the war and their motives. I liked that all of the classes had something to rebel about which joined them together, even though in the end it just led to more confusion. Like we said in Professor Stark's portion of the class, this was a very unique war. I personally felt like I understood most everyone's motives and how they knew that someone else's motives might not be the same but they worked together anyway.

Week 6

In honors this week we have been reading The Underdogs by Mariano Azuela. It tells the story of the Mexican Revolution from the rebel side. Mariano actually fought on the rebel side so even though the story is fictional, there is still some credibility in the events and behaviors of the men. For today we had to read part two of the book. I felt like a lot of this section focused on women. Here, we are introduced to a couple of new characters. The one who stands out to me the most is a woman named Pintada. The relations between Pintada and the men are different than that of other women. She still isn’t as respected as the men but she definitely holds her own. During one of the loots of this section we are also introduced to two young girls who seem to be almost like prizes for the men and they are not given names. Not only is Pintada given a name she fights and loots with the men and they help her when Macías drunkenly attacks her. I think this is interesting because we recently talked about the role of women in the revolution in Professor Stark’s portion of the class and even though we talked about them having very active roles it seemed so unbelievable to me as women had always been treated as inferior in history.  Seeing Pintada almost be treated as one of the men was very interesting to me.

              Another interesting aspect of Pintada is her loyalty (to some degree) to other women. She tried to help the girl the Cervantes had taken and offered to help Camila get home. That being said that loyalty was nothing compared to her loyalty for the man she loved, Guero Margarito. If anything about him was called into question she would quickly abandon any other ties. In the end, we see how much she meant to him as he agrees with Macías when he wants to send her away and refers to the relief that he has when she was gone. I think this provides an interesting look at the relationship between men and women at the time. Women could be seen as strong but they were next to nothing to the men as can be seen in this instance, Macías’s multiple affairs, and how quickly he got over the death of Camila.

Week 5 Reply to Trenton

My group analyzed a picture that showed Uncle Sam as the protector of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and soon the Philippines. I think it's interesting to see the differences between the two pictures as it provides to different perspectives on the same era. To France, the U.S. was greedy, trying to take over Latin America for it's own gain but to the United States, we were protectors doing good in "less civilized" countries.

Week 5

This past week in Latin American Civilization we have been starting to work on our final projects. I’m very excited to start this new final project. It’s interesting to look at current events in Latin America. All year we have been studying the past and as we approach the 20^th century in the lecture portion of the class everything that we have learned seems to be coming together. At the same time, it also makes it seem like the “past” isn’t so far away. As we draw closer to meeting up with current events the time when we studied the Mexica empire doesn’t seem as long ago.

Additionally, I know that we are getting to the portion of the semester where we will talk about Diego Rivera and possibly his relationship with Frida Kahlo. I personally am a big fan of both artists but I do tend to favor Kahlo. I love to see the art that came out of Latin America in that period and I’m very excited to get to a portion of the class in which we can look at that topic. When we start to study Diego Rivera we will also go to the Detroit Institute of Art. I think it will be interesting to actually see what we’re studying as this past year it felt a little difficult to connect the history that we were hearing to reality.

Reply to Drake Week 4

Reading your post made me think about the way that we look at history. It makes me wonder what else we remember in history differently than it actually was. In my sophomore year of high school I read both A People's History of the United States and A Patriot's History of the United States. They provided two perspectives on American history and the differences were shocking. It was very interesting to look at how history is remembered.

Week 4

This past week in Latin American Civilization we’ve been learning about the Spanish-American War and Theodore Roosevelt. It was very interesting to hear and talk about the United States president from a different angle and to think about him in a modern perspective. Theodore Roosevelt was aggressive and pig-headed, he got what he needed to get done done and he didn’t care what anyone had to say otherwise. He believed that his way was the only right way and anything else was unacceptable. For these traits he was highly revered in the United States as he exemplified a lot of how we identified ourselves at the time. That being said, as we read about his behavior towards other countries, particularly Cuba it begins to change my perspective a little. Additionally, now when I think of Roosevelt, I can help but draw similarities between him and Trump. They both are presidents who ran without the support of their entire party and who are incredibly active. I can’t help but wonder how we in the United States would react to the election of Theodore Roosevelt now. Would there be as much backlash as there is for the current president? Will Trump be held with the same esteem as Roosevelt one day? It’s interesting to see how it all plays out. That being said, I greatly hope that Trump doesn’t push an imperial agenda as hard as Roosevelt, though the times of imperialism seem to be over. Although, our relations with Latin American countries could potentially be very interesting in the next few years.

Reply to Melissa Week 3

I thought this was an insightful look at the way that politics seem to be going as of late. I totally see what you mean have experience many people who say that they're "voting republican" or "voting democrat" which is termed "straight ticket voting". This mindset of voting for the party rather than the individual persons ideals can be a very scary reality that can lead to more and more division in politics in a time when our country needs more unity than ever.

Week 3

This past week in Latin American Civilization we have been speaking about commemoration speeches given in Mexico during times of strife. For the most part, the speech all had a few things in common. They all called upon the past to guide the future or at least explain the present. All the speeches used Mexico’s past and their formation to convince the current citizens to rally behind the person giving the speech’s cause. This practice of drawing upon the past is not exclusive to these speeches and this tactic is used all the time in current practice. For example, recently elected president Trump ran with the slogan “Make America Great Again”. This phrase calls upon the idea that in America’s history we were once a great and powerful nation but if we rally behind Trump than we can be great and powerful once again. Other examples we see in current day America takes place in the women’s rights movement. Often in speeches, women will draw upon the suffragettes who first worked publicly for the furtherance of women’s rights. Women will call upon the rights movement from the earliest days of the movement to the bra-burning of the 1970s to encourage modern women to stand up and continue the practice of fighting for equality. Clearly, history can be a powerful motivator but it can also be looked at from multiple perspectives which can be seen in the differences of the speeches we’ve read. This can also be seen with the differences of looking to the past for inspiration and looking to the past as a cautionary tale. This can also be seen in modern day America as many people draw connections between Trump and leaders who were considered dangerous and tyrannical, mostly seen in his off-handed statements about registering those who practice the Islam. The point is, history can be interpreted in a variety of ways to make a point about the current state of affairs. 

Reply to Hannah Week 2

Regarding your first paragraph, I also found the way that nations set up their economic policies very interesting. It was also interesting to see how the export-oriented economy worked really well for some and not so well for others. For example, like you said Peru had been using guano as a nitrate export but soon the market crashed because they had exhausted their reserves. On the other hand, you can look at Argentina and their exportation of beef. They started with their long horn cattle and moved to short horn when it became necessary for them to do so. They're still known for their beef today. I think that by looking at these two countries it is easy to see that a component of success comes from a nation's flexibility to a changing market.

Week 2

This past week in Latin American Civilization we have been discussing Esteban Echevarria's "The Slaughterhouse" and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento's Facundo: Civilizacion y Barbarie. Both readings comment on Buenos Aires and the separation between Federalists and Unitarians in Argentina. After reading “The Slaughterhouse” I told my group about how I couldn’t help but draw comparisons between Echevarria’s short story and another short story I read in high school titled “The Lottery.” “The Lottery” follows the story of a small town where all citizens must participate in a lottery. Throughout the story it is unclear what winning the lottery means but it is made clear that town attendance is incredibly important. When the winner for the lottery is drawn, it turns out to be one of the characters whose life we had been following up until that point. The town leaders then state that the children should “go first” and the children being to throw rocks at the character. It then becomes clear that the “winner” of the lottery is stoned to death by the other townspeople. The lottery is about why we follow tradition but a parallel can be drawn between that short story and “The Slaughterhouse” in the blind willingness of the masses to commit atrocities and overlook brutal violence for seemingly unjustifiable reasons. “The Lottery” cites tradition as a reason for the townspeople’s’ brutality but “The Slaughterhouse” cites the political divide and the leaders of the Federalist party for the unprovoked violence of the masses. I think that both readings offer an interesting view on some of the ways in which humans justify their actions and both bring forward the question: what am I blindly following do to tradition or authority?

Reply to Allison

I totally see where you’re coming from. There are so many things that go into building a new nation such as some of the things that you mentioned but I would also like to add that I believe that all these factors can alter the way that we view the leader at that time. I think when looking back on history, we like to decide whether someone was a good or bad person rather than a good or bad leader. I think we look back and say that they chose to do form the country under their rule in a certain way because they are inherently good or inherently bad but I believe that it’s a lot more complicated than that. Like you said there are an incredible number of factors that go into forming a new nation and a leader may thing that they’re making a good decision at the time and it could end up costing the country dearly. Additionally, leaders make their decisions from their own experiences and the advice of others and with humans there is generally some sort of bias which influences their decision.

Week 1

This past week in Latin American Civilization we have been learning about the formation of post-independence Latin American countries and the debates on how the country should be ran regarding topics such as political, social, and economic policy. In both sections of the class we’ve been delving into the differences between liberalism and conservatism and their impacts in different areas of Latin America. It was interesting for me to see the impact that the United States had on a lot of Latin American countries as being in this class has given me a new perspective. All throughout grade school I was very interested in United States history but seeing it through the eyes of another country has been fascinating. In class, we have discussed the fact that the Latin American countries looked to Europe and North America as a model to base their countries off which creates a sort of magnifying effect for the United States as we consider what ideas were applied to their countries. I think what really struck me was the differences in the emphasis placed on individualism in North America and Europe and the sense of community in Latin America. While reading about the history of the United States it never occurred to me the degree in which our background is firmly planted in the idea of the individual. As we worked our way through the lecture and the discussion, the saying “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” kept occurring to me because it exemplifies the American ideal of fixing your problems without the assistance of others. As capitalism spread in Latin America, so did the importance of the individual and this idea was so different than the sense of community that these countries were used to. This infecting force of capitalism dramatically altered the ways of life in Latin America, as a sense of community was de-emphasized, this change can be accounted for as an attributing factor as to why capitalism and modernization lead to chaos in those areas.